In article <4icjgvgb2vc4fqbjks4djm55bl2140stia[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote in
> <fretwizz-DC96A8.11384306072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>
> >In article <g4jfgv0cq8rriuon9cilbg4kfe9vur48dr[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> <fretwizz-89F2DA.10481302072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >>
> >> >In article <gio4gv8sprrm1k81rr9mab3t2apubiu4th[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> >> <fretwizz-D266EF.12550701072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <5nl3gvovm92e90lh8drp6truv63atlps8e[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Jim Polaski wrote in
> >> >> >> <jpolaski-5E70E1.03091201072003[at][199.72.44.116]>:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >http://www.luxology.net/company/wwdc03followup.aspx
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >How will the windiots spin this one?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's a questionable test precisely because the GPU is meant to take
> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> this workload in most systems. What does it tell you about real
> >> >> >> world
> >> >> >> performance. In reality, practically nothing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So the Luxology guys' idea that it was a fair CPU test is simply way
> >> >> >off
> >> >> >base? Why?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why should I care? I'm not concerned with their motive, just their
> >> >> argument.
> >> >
> >> >Fine, will you answer the question I asked now?
> >>
> >> I just did. I answered it by informing you it's an irrelevant
> >> question--no one uses the CPU that way in the real world, as an
> >> offload for tasks best performed by a dedicated GPU (there is no such
> >> thing as a game that says "best used on a GeForce FX or a REALLY
> >> REALLY FAST CPU"). I see you can't really summon a counter-argument,
> >> just this earnest querulous pose.
> >
> >So the Luxology engineering teams' idea that this is a good test of
> >CPU's is all wrong in your opinion? Why? ... and give the specifics with
> >your answer. Please note for you reference that I haven't yet developed
> >my counter-argument. At this point I'm simply trying to ascertain why I
> >should listen to you over them. You have the floor...
>
> I've already explained it with specifics. Read. They're forcing the
> CPU to do the work that modern systems give to the GPU. It's
> nonsense. I suppose you could disable the hard drive cache and say it
> was a valid test of something (memory, maybe) but since no modern
> computers have cacheless hard drives it's meaningless--you're testing
> performance in a situation that the user will never encounter. If you
> can't marshall a counter-argument it says something about how
> comfortable you are doing so.

Like I stated earlier, I haven't yet done so, but it's very evident now
that I have no need to marshall a 'counter argument'.

Steve

In article <qi2mgv8moqvr2n4h08vqc2ah2jdd13lq0s[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote in
> <fretwizz-5E58C8.12100707072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>
> >In article <4icjgvgb2vc4fqbjks4djm55bl2140stia[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> <fretwizz-DC96A8.11384306072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >>
> >> >In article <g4jfgv0cq8rriuon9cilbg4kfe9vur48dr[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> >> <fretwizz-89F2DA.10481302072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <gio4gv8sprrm1k81rr9mab3t2apubiu4th[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> >> >> <fretwizz-D266EF.12550701072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <5nl3gvovm92e90lh8drp6truv63atlps8e[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Jim Polaski wrote in
> >> >> >> >> <jpolaski-5E70E1.03091201072003[at][199.72.44.116]>:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >http://www.luxology.net/company/wwdc03followup.aspx
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >How will the windiots spin this one?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> It's a questionable test precisely because the GPU is meant to
> >> >> >> >> take
> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> this workload in most systems. What does it tell you about real
> >> >> >> >> world
> >> >> >> >> performance. In reality, practically nothing.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >So the Luxology guys' idea that it was a fair CPU test is simply
> >> >> >> >way
> >> >> >> >off
> >> >> >> >base? Why?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why should I care? I'm not concerned with their motive, just their
> >> >> >> argument.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Fine, will you answer the question I asked now?
> >> >>
> >> >> I just did. I answered it by informing you it's an irrelevant
> >> >> question--no one uses the CPU that way in the real world, as an
> >> >> offload for tasks best performed by a dedicated GPU (there is no such
> >> >> thing as a game that says "best used on a GeForce FX or a REALLY
> >> >> REALLY FAST CPU"). I see you can't really summon a counter-argument,
> >> >> just this earnest querulous pose.
> >> >
> >> >So the Luxology engineering teams' idea that this is a good test of
> >> >CPU's is all wrong in your opinion? Why? ... and give the specifics with
> >> >your answer. Please note for you reference that I haven't yet developed
> >> >my counter-argument. At this point I'm simply trying to ascertain why I
> >> >should listen to you over them. You have the floor...
> >>
> >> I've already explained it with specifics. Read. They're forcing the
> >> CPU to do the work that modern systems give to the GPU. It's
> >> nonsense. I suppose you could disable the hard drive cache and say it
> >> was a valid test of something (memory, maybe) but since no modern
> >> computers have cacheless hard drives it's meaningless--you're testing
> >> performance in a situation that the user will never encounter. If you
> >> can't marshall a counter-argument it says something about how
> >> comfortable you are doing so.
> >
> >Like I stated earlier, I haven't yet done so, but it's very evident now
> >that I have no need to marshall a 'counter argument'.
>
> You found your sandpile? Or you've concluded that benchmarks that
> show performance under circumstances users will never enounter are
> really brilliant. Either way you look like a dolt who is in over his
> head.

So, in your estimation, you believe you have convinced people that you
are correct and the Luxology engineering team is wrong? I've seen you
try and pass off some amazing 'realities' before... but I think this
tops the list.

Steve

In article <96hpgv0f5vrgneqn76pb16urvqdnekjg11[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote in
> <fretwizz-127B4A.13571108072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>
> >In article <qi2mgv8moqvr2n4h08vqc2ah2jdd13lq0s[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> <fretwizz-5E58C8.12100707072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >>
> >> >In article <4icjgvgb2vc4fqbjks4djm55bl2140stia[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> >> <fretwizz-DC96A8.11384306072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <g4jfgv0cq8rriuon9cilbg4kfe9vur48dr[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> >> >> <fretwizz-89F2DA.10481302072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <gio4gv8sprrm1k81rr9mab3t2apubiu4th[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> >> >> >> <fretwizz-D266EF.12550701072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >In article <5nl3gvovm92e90lh8drp6truv63atlps8e[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Jim Polaski wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> <jpolaski-5E70E1.03091201072003[at][199.72.44.116]>:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >http://www.luxology.net/company/wwdc03followup.aspx
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >How will the windiots spin this one?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> It's a questionable test precisely because the GPU is meant to
> >> >> >> >> >> take
> >> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> >> this workload in most systems. What does it tell you about
> >> >> >> >> >> real
> >> >> >> >> >> world
> >> >> >> >> >> performance. In reality, practically nothing.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >So the Luxology guys' idea that it was a fair CPU test is simply
> >> >> >> >> >way
> >> >> >> >> >off
> >> >> >> >> >base? Why?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Why should I care? I'm not concerned with their motive, just
> >> >> >> >> their
> >> >> >> >> argument.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Fine, will you answer the question I asked now?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I just did. I answered it by informing you it's an irrelevant
> >> >> >> question--no one uses the CPU that way in the real world, as an
> >> >> >> offload for tasks best performed by a dedicated GPU (there is no
> >> >> >> such
> >> >> >> thing as a game that says "best used on a GeForce FX or a REALLY
> >> >> >> REALLY FAST CPU"). I see you can't really summon a
> >> >> >> counter-argument,
> >> >> >> just this earnest querulous pose.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So the Luxology engineering teams' idea that this is a good test of
> >> >> >CPU's is all wrong in your opinion? Why? ... and give the specifics
> >> >> >with
> >> >> >your answer. Please note for you reference that I haven't yet
> >> >> >developed
> >> >> >my counter-argument. At this point I'm simply trying to ascertain why
> >> >> >I
> >> >> >should listen to you over them. You have the floor...
> >> >>
> >> >> I've already explained it with specifics. Read. They're forcing the
> >> >> CPU to do the work that modern systems give to the GPU. It's
> >> >> nonsense. I suppose you could disable the hard drive cache and say it
> >> >> was a valid test of something (memory, maybe) but since no modern
> >> >> computers have cacheless hard drives it's meaningless--you're testing
> >> >> performance in a situation that the user will never encounter. If you
> >> >> can't marshall a counter-argument it says something about how
> >> >> comfortable you are doing so.
> >> >
> >> >Like I stated earlier, I haven't yet done so, but it's very evident now
> >> >that I have no need to marshall a 'counter argument'.
> >>
> >> You found your sandpile? Or you've concluded that benchmarks that
> >> show performance under circumstances users will never enounter are
> >> really brilliant. Either way you look like a dolt who is in over his
> >> head.
> >
> >So, in your estimation, you believe you have convinced people that you
> >are correct and the Luxology engineering team is wrong? I've seen you
> >try and pass off some amazing 'realities' before... but I think this
> >tops the list.
>
> I don't believe I can convince an Apple zombie, I just note you found
> no counter-argument to marshall, tossed off an argument to authority,
> then ran away. Brilliant, Steve-o.

I ran away? LOL! I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the engineers
at Luxology know less than you do about testing CPU's. Just a thought
here... is Edwin your room-mate?

Steve

In article <kfmtgv8hhg2jvhsoov1idg2et3r187oqku[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote in
> <fretwizz-81CEB9.12041210072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>
> >In article <96hpgv0f5vrgneqn76pb16urvqdnekjg11[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> <fretwizz-127B4A.13571108072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >>
> >> >In article <qi2mgv8moqvr2n4h08vqc2ah2jdd13lq0s[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> >> <fretwizz-5E58C8.12100707072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <4icjgvgb2vc4fqbjks4djm55bl2140stia[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> >> >> <fretwizz-DC96A8.11384306072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <g4jfgv0cq8rriuon9cilbg4kfe9vur48dr[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> >> >> >> <fretwizz-89F2DA.10481302072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >In article <gio4gv8sprrm1k81rr9mab3t2apubiu4th[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> <fretwizz-D266EF.12550701072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <5nl3gvovm92e90lh8drp6truv63atlps8e[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jim Polaski wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> <jpolaski-5E70E1.03091201072003[at][199.72.44.116]>:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://www.luxology.net/company/wwdc03followup.aspx
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >How will the windiots spin this one?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's a questionable test precisely because the GPU is meant
> >> >> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> take
> >> >> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> >> >> this workload in most systems. What does it tell you about
> >> >> >> >> >> >> real
> >> >> >> >> >> >> world
> >> >> >> >> >> >> performance. In reality, practically nothing.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >So the Luxology guys' idea that it was a fair CPU test is
> >> >> >> >> >> >simply
> >> >> >> >> >> >way
> >> >> >> >> >> >off
> >> >> >> >> >> >base? Why?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Why should I care? I'm not concerned with their motive, just
> >> >> >> >> >> their
> >> >> >> >> >> argument.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Fine, will you answer the question I asked now?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I just did. I answered it by informing you it's an irrelevant
> >> >> >> >> question--no one uses the CPU that way in the real world, as an
> >> >> >> >> offload for tasks best performed by a dedicated GPU (there is no
> >> >> >> >> such
> >> >> >> >> thing as a game that says "best used on a GeForce FX or a REALLY
> >> >> >> >> REALLY FAST CPU"). I see you can't really summon a
> >> >> >> >> counter-argument,
> >> >> >> >> just this earnest querulous pose.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >So the Luxology engineering teams' idea that this is a good test of
> >> >> >> >CPU's is all wrong in your opinion? Why? ... and give the specifics
> >> >> >> >with
> >> >> >> >your answer. Please note for you reference that I haven't yet
> >> >> >> >developed
> >> >> >> >my counter-argument. At this point I'm simply trying to ascertain
> >> >> >> >why
> >> >> >> >I
> >> >> >> >should listen to you over them. You have the floor...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I've already explained it with specifics. Read. They're forcing
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> CPU to do the work that modern systems give to the GPU. It's
> >> >> >> nonsense. I suppose you could disable the hard drive cache and say
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> was a valid test of something (memory, maybe) but since no modern
> >> >> >> computers have cacheless hard drives it's meaningless--you're
> >> >> >> testing
> >> >> >> performance in a situation that the user will never encounter. If
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> can't marshall a counter-argument it says something about how
> >> >> >> comfortable you are doing so.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Like I stated earlier, I haven't yet done so, but it's very evident
> >> >> >now
> >> >> >that I have no need to marshall a 'counter argument'.
> >> >>
> >> >> You found your sandpile? Or you've concluded that benchmarks that
> >> >> show performance under circumstances users will never enounter are
> >> >> really brilliant. Either way you look like a dolt who is in over his
> >> >> head.
> >> >
> >> >So, in your estimation, you believe you have convinced people that you
> >> >are correct and the Luxology engineering team is wrong? I've seen you
> >> >try and pass off some amazing 'realities' before... but I think this
> >> >tops the list.
> >>
> >> I don't believe I can convince an Apple zombie, I just note you found
> >> no counter-argument to marshall, tossed off an argument to authority,
> >> then ran away. Brilliant, Steve-o.
> >
> >I ran away? LOL! I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the engineers
> >at Luxology know less than you do about testing CPU's. Just a thought
> >here... is Edwin your room-mate?
>
> Figuratively you've fled, by continuing to raise irrelevant questions
> after it's been explained to you why they're irrelevant. Well, you've
> either run away or you're a moron. You pick which one fits your
> self-image the best.
>
> And you never did respond to my point about why their tests aren't
> valid benchmarks for desktop computers. Just a thought here... is
> Edwin your roommate?

Besides extremely feeble attempts at ad hominem attacks, all you've said
so far is that the testing method Luxology used wouldn't be done in real
world usage. That's not only a non-answer to the question I asked you...
it's also blatantly ridiculous. Things are tested in many fields in ways
that won't necessarily be duplicated in the real world and guess what?
Real world engineers know this, as do many people on this NG. Sorta
leaves you the odd man out, Steve. So... I haven't run anywhere... I
have sat here and watched you posts several non-answers to MY question.
Explain it all to me again... why are you to be believed over the
engineering team at Luxology regarding how a CPU can be tested? See,
until you actually backup what you have been spouting, you'll continue
to look like what you now look like. You don't even know what Luxology's
software does, do you? You have NO idea what they offloaded from the GPU
to the CPU, do you? You have NO idea why this is a valid test, do you?
Your answer is... that because these routines are normally handed off to
a GPU the test is no kind of valid benchmark for a CPU. You make this
statement knowing NOTHING about what those routines are. And after all
of this, you actually expect for people to listen to what you have to
say. LOL!!! I've got news for you... your credibility is shot after
making such claims. You'll now need to take your over-inflated ego down
to alt.dimwits.that.listen.to.hanson because no one here will believe
what you have to say on the subject.

Steve

Steve Carroll wrote in
<fretwizz-13064C.10442511072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:

>In article <kfmtgv8hhg2jvhsoov1idg2et3r187oqku[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote in
>> <fretwizz-81CEB9.12041210072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>>
>> >In article <96hpgv0f5vrgneqn76pb16urvqdnekjg11[at]4ax.com>,
>> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
>> >> <fretwizz-127B4A.13571108072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <qi2mgv8moqvr2n4h08vqc2ah2jdd13lq0s[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
>> >> >> <fretwizz-5E58C8.12100707072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <4icjgvgb2vc4fqbjks4djm55bl2140stia[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
>> >> >> >> <fretwizz-DC96A8.11384306072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >In article <g4jfgv0cq8rriuon9cilbg4kfe9vur48dr[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> <fretwizz-89F2DA.10481302072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >In article <gio4gv8sprrm1k81rr9mab3t2apubiu4th[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> <fretwizz-D266EF.12550701072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <5nl3gvovm92e90lh8drp6truv63atlps8e[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jim Polaski wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> <jpolaski-5E70E1.03091201072003[at][199.72.44.116]>:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://www.luxology.net/company/wwdc03followup.aspx
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >How will the windiots spin this one?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's a questionable test precisely because the GPU is meant
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> take
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> this workload in most systems. What does it tell you about
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> real
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> world
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> performance. In reality, practically nothing.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >So the Luxology guys' idea that it was a fair CPU test is
>> >> >> >> >> >> >simply
>> >> >> >> >> >> >way
>> >> >> >> >> >> >off
>> >> >> >> >> >> >base? Why?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Why should I care? I'm not concerned with their motive, just
>> >> >> >> >> >> their
>> >> >> >> >> >> argument.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Fine, will you answer the question I asked now?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I just did. I answered it by informing you it's an irrelevant
>> >> >> >> >> question--no one uses the CPU that way in the real world, as an
>> >> >> >> >> offload for tasks best performed by a dedicated GPU (there is no
>> >> >> >> >> such
>> >> >> >> >> thing as a game that says "best used on a GeForce FX or a REALLY
>> >> >> >> >> REALLY FAST CPU"). I see you can't really summon a
>> >> >> >> >> counter-argument,
>> >> >> >> >> just this earnest querulous pose.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >So the Luxology engineering teams' idea that this is a good test of
>> >> >> >> >CPU's is all wrong in your opinion? Why? ... and give the specifics
>> >> >> >> >with
>> >> >> >> >your answer. Please note for you reference that I haven't yet
>> >> >> >> >developed
>> >> >> >> >my counter-argument. At this point I'm simply trying to ascertain
>> >> >> >> >why
>> >> >> >> >I
>> >> >> >> >should listen to you over them. You have the floor...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I've already explained it with specifics. Read. They're forcing
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> CPU to do the work that modern systems give to the GPU. It's
>> >> >> >> nonsense. I suppose you could disable the hard drive cache and say
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> was a valid test of something (memory, maybe) but since no modern
>> >> >> >> computers have cacheless hard drives it's meaningless--you're
>> >> >> >> testing
>> >> >> >> performance in a situation that the user will never encounter. If
>> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> can't marshall a counter-argument it says something about how
>> >> >> >> comfortable you are doing so.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Like I stated earlier, I haven't yet done so, but it's very evident
>> >> >> >now
>> >> >> >that I have no need to marshall a 'counter argument'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You found your sandpile? Or you've concluded that benchmarks that
>> >> >> show performance under circumstances users will never enounter are
>> >> >> really brilliant. Either way you look like a dolt who is in over his
>> >> >> head.
>> >> >
>> >> >So, in your estimation, you believe you have convinced people that you
>> >> >are correct and the Luxology engineering team is wrong? I've seen you
>> >> >try and pass off some amazing 'realities' before... but I think this
>> >> >tops the list.
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe I can convince an Apple zombie, I just note you found
>> >> no counter-argument to marshall, tossed off an argument to authority,
>> >> then ran away. Brilliant, Steve-o.
>> >
>> >I ran away? LOL! I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the engineers
>> >at Luxology know less than you do about testing CPU's. Just a thought
>> >here... is Edwin your room-mate?
>>
>> Figuratively you've fled, by continuing to raise irrelevant questions
>> after it's been explained to you why they're irrelevant. Well, you've
>> either run away or you're a moron. You pick which one fits your
>> self-image the best.
>>
>> And you never did respond to my point about why their tests aren't
>> valid benchmarks for desktop computers. Just a thought here... is
>> Edwin your roommate?
>
>Besides extremely feeble attempts at ad hominem attacks,

Actually I haven't used a single ad hominem attack. I hope you
realize that an ad hominem attack is an attempt to prove that the
argument is wrong because of the person stating it. Have I insulted
you, on the other hand? Yes, I have, because you're a pinhead who
merits pretty constant insults.

But as you've been avoiding making any argument except to authority
(Luxology must have conducted a valid test because it's Luxology) it's
a bit rich for you to try to insinuate that anyone else in the
discussion has been guilty of "feeble attempts at ad hominem attacks".

Logician, correct thyself.

> all you've said
>so far is that the testing method Luxology used wouldn't be done in real
>world usage. That's not only a non-answer to the question I asked you...
>it's also blatantly ridiculous. Things are tested in many fields in ways
>that won't necessarily be duplicated in the real world and guess what?
>Real world engineers know this, as do many people on this NG. Sorta
>leaves you the odd man out, Steve. So... I haven't run anywhere... I

It appears you've run screaming and having this pointed out to you was
the final straw. The question you asked me repeatedly ("Explain why
Luxology wouldn't know how to do proper benchmark") is beside the
point that the benchmark they did run is not a reliable measurement of
CPU performance.

Constructing a good benchmark isn't easy, in fact its very hard and
hardware manufacturers routinely try to detect benchmarks and optimize
for them. This was a bit of an opposite case, a benchmark chosen
because it runs better on one platform even though the benchmark
itself doesn't depict a situation that personal computers are ever
going to face--that is having their video card effectively disabled so
that the CPU can do all the work. Many parts of the system are
specifically geared to efficiently sending work to the GPU, and CPU
design will inevitably take that into account. You don't optimize for
type of processing that will never happen.

Before you wear yourself out repeating your lame and idiotically inapt
question, answer this: why isn't Luxology's benchmark used by
everyone else as a general measure of system performance? Why do we
even bother with SPEC? I'm almost amazed by your doltish "Apple
First" mentality, you're too shortsighted even to see that if you
allow such a meaningless benchmark to show off the G5's performance
you'll have no room to complain when an equally meaningless benchmark
is used to show the superiority of the latest x86 CPU.

>have sat here and watched you posts several non-answers to MY question.
>Explain it all to me again... why are you to be believed over the
>engineering team at Luxology regarding how a CPU can be tested? See,

Another argument to authority, am I to collect these and form a
bracelet out of your chain of loose reasoning?

>until you actually backup what you have been spouting, you'll continue
>to look like what you now look like. You don't even know what Luxology's
>software does, do you? You have NO idea what they offloaded from the GPU
>to the CPU, do you? You have NO idea why this is a valid test, do you?
>Your answer is... that because these routines are normally handed off to
>a GPU the test is no kind of valid benchmark for a CPU. You make this
>statement knowing NOTHING about what those routines are. And after all
>of this, you actually expect for people to listen to what you have to
>say. LOL!!! I've got news for you... your credibility is shot after
>making such claims. You'll now need to take your over-inflated ego down
>to alt.dimwits.that.listen.to.hanson because no one here will believe
>what you have to say on the subject.

You of all people huffing and puffing about credibility? You have
none as you've done nothing in this thread other than shout questions
you can't see the irrelevance of and make brain-damaged arguments to
authority. Someone check and see if Steve Carroll's veins are popping
on his neck yet. I seem to have sent him into a grand mal seizure.

In article <5dttgvsqsa25jb6331duiif23kbavi8nbn[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

(snip)

> Actually I haven't used a single ad hominem attack. I hope you
> realize that an ad hominem attack is an attempt to prove that the
> argument is wrong because of the person stating it. Have I insulted
> you, on the other hand? Yes, I have, because you're a pinhead who
> merits pretty constant insults.


You're a riot, delusional as hell, but a riot, nevertheless.

> But as you've been avoiding making any argument except to authority
> (Luxology must have conducted a valid test because it's Luxology) it's
> a bit rich for you to try to insinuate that anyone else in the
> discussion has been guilty of "feeble attempts at ad hominem attacks".
>
> Logician, correct thyself.


I have. I contacted Luxology and found out a few things about their
testing with regards to SPEC. As a result, it's way more than obvious
you are talking outta your ass.

> > all you've said
> >so far is that the testing method Luxology used wouldn't be done in real
> >world usage. That's not only a non-answer to the question I asked you...
> >it's also blatantly ridiculous. Things are tested in many fields in ways
> >that won't necessarily be duplicated in the real world and guess what?
> >Real world engineers know this, as do many people on this NG. Sorta
> >leaves you the odd man out, Steve. So... I haven't run anywhere... I
>
> It appears you've run screaming and having this pointed out to you was
> the final straw. The question you asked me repeatedly ("Explain why
> Luxology wouldn't know how to do proper benchmark") is beside the
> point that the benchmark they did run is not a reliable measurement of
> CPU performance.
>

It's my point to make and it still stands quite solid. You have not
provided one reason for anyone to listen to what you have to say on this
matter. Forget Luxology, explain why I should listen to you at all. I'm
not talking about some delusion you have of yourself that you fancy I
share with you. Now, YOU are the one making the claim that what Luxology
did to measure CPU performance is invalid and in no way relates to SPEC.
It's now up to you to explain, specifically, why this is so. You have a
small problem though... don't you? You don't really know what the hell,
exactly, they did to perform the test. Don't worry... no one will stay
around to watch you remove your foot from your mouth as they've all seen
this act before.


> Constructing a good benchmark isn't easy, in fact its very hard and
> hardware manufacturers routinely try to detect benchmarks and optimize
> for them. This was a bit of an opposite case, a benchmark chosen
> because it runs better on one platform even though the benchmark
> itself doesn't depict a situation that personal computers are ever
> going to face--that is having their video card effectively disabled so
> that the CPU can do all the work.

LOL! You didn't actually READ the URL I provided, did you?


> Many parts of the system are
> specifically geared to efficiently sending work to the GPU, and CPU
> design will inevitably take that into account. You don't optimize for
> type of processing that will never happen.

A rehash of non-content won't save your 'argument'. If you had read the
URL you would have saved yourself from looking like what you now look
like.


> Before you wear yourself out repeating your lame and idiotically inapt
> question, answer this: why isn't Luxology's benchmark used by
> everyone else as a general measure of system performance?

Kneeling at the SPEC alter won't change anything, either... and this is
the FUN part for me, because what they did is essentially measured in
SPEC. I think you should go talk to an engineer at Luxology before you
continue to play a fool on this NG. You may want to familiarize yourself
with the benchmarks you worship while you're at it.


> Why do we
> even bother with SPEC? I'm almost amazed by your doltish "Apple
> First" mentality, you're too shortsighted even to see that if you
> allow such a meaningless benchmark to show off the G5's performance
> you'll have no room to complain when an equally meaningless benchmark
> is used to show the superiority of the latest x86 CPU.

And you're too short-sighted to realize that people talk to each other.
Write a letter to Luxology... get back to me.

> >have sat here and watched you posts several non-answers to MY question.
> >Explain it all to me again... why are you to be believed over the
> >engineering team at Luxology regarding how a CPU can be tested? See,
>
> Another argument to authority, am I to collect these and form a
> bracelet out of your chain of loose reasoning?

That's quite humorous coming from one who avoids giving reason when
asked of him. You're TRYING like hell to sound like an authority here...
why not explain to all of us why you are?

> >until you actually backup what you have been spouting, you'll continue
> >to look like what you now look like. You don't even know what Luxology's
> >software does, do you? You have NO idea what they offloaded from the GPU
> >to the CPU, do you? You have NO idea why this is a valid test, do you?
> >Your answer is... that because these routines are normally handed off to
> >a GPU the test is no kind of valid benchmark for a CPU. You make this
> >statement knowing NOTHING about what those routines are. And after all
> >of this, you actually expect for people to listen to what you have to
> >say. LOL!!! I've got news for you... your credibility is shot after
> >making such claims. You'll now need to take your over-inflated ego down
> >to alt.dimwits.that.listen.to.hanson because no one here will believe
> >what you have to say on the subject.
>
> You of all people huffing and puffing about credibility? You have
> none as you've done nothing in this thread other than shout questions
> you can't see the irrelevance of and make brain-damaged arguments to
> authority.

Not exactly, see... I checked with an authority that was involved in the
testing. He seems to know a lot more than you have shown so far. You are
publicly passing all kinds of judgement on something you know nothing
about.


> Someone check and see if Steve Carroll's veins are popping
> on his neck yet. I seem to have sent him into a grand mal seizure.

So you don't intend on supplying any reason why anyone should listen to
you about CPU testing? Gotcha. For my part, I think I'll stick with the
conversation I had with a Luxology engineer for the time being. My neck
veins and I see this a more reasonable course of action than listening
to some NG buffoon who can't answer a simple question regarding his own
authority on a subject he has publicly shown himself to be woefully
ill-prepared to discuss. Be a sport and let me know what information
Luxology conveys to you, won't you? While I'm waiting, I'll find
something for you that goes well with crow...

Steve

In article <9uk5hv8qlb0qo9aclfgtkcdeb18hf34t4l[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote in
> <fretwizz-2AF257.18111711072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>
> >In article <5dttgvsqsa25jb6331duiif23kbavi8nbn[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >(snip)
> >
> >> Actually I haven't used a single ad hominem attack. I hope you
> >> realize that an ad hominem attack is an attempt to prove that the
> >> argument is wrong because of the person stating it. Have I insulted
> >> you, on the other hand? Yes, I have, because you're a pinhead who
> >> merits pretty constant insults.
> >
> >
> >You're a riot, delusional as hell, but a riot, nevertheless.
>
> Uh oh, I sense a bout of epic flailing coming up...
>
> >I have. I contacted Luxology and found out a few things about their
> >testing with regards to SPEC. As a result, it's way more than obvious
> >you are talking outta your ass.
>
> When you pick up the phone there isn't a dial tone, is there?
>
> >> > all you've said
> >> >so far is that the testing method Luxology used wouldn't be done in real
> >> >world usage. That's not only a non-answer to the question I asked you...
> >> >it's also blatantly ridiculous. Things are tested in many fields in ways
> >> >that won't necessarily be duplicated in the real world and guess what?
> >> >Real world engineers know this, as do many people on this NG. Sorta
> >> >leaves you the odd man out, Steve. So... I haven't run anywhere... I
> >>
> >> It appears you've run screaming and having this pointed out to you was
> >> the final straw. The question you asked me repeatedly ("Explain why
> >> Luxology wouldn't know how to do proper benchmark") is beside the
> >> point that the benchmark they did run is not a reliable measurement of
> >> CPU performance.
> >>
> >
> >It's my point to make and it still stands quite solid. You have not
> >provided one reason for anyone to listen to what you have to say on this
> >matter. Forget Luxology, explain why I should listen to you at all. I'm
>
> You shouldn't, it clearly threatens you considering all the smoke
> you've blowing. You want to talk about everything but Luxology's
> test--me, Luxology, the voices in your head...
>
> >A rehash of non-content won't save your 'argument'. If you had read the
> >URL you would have saved yourself from looking like what you now look
> >like.
>
> Oh God, if only I could go back and do it all over differently! I
> wouldn't look like what I now look...like. Hey, drop any good acid,
> lately?
>
> >> >have sat here and watched you posts several non-answers to MY question.
> >> >Explain it all to me again... why are you to be believed over the
> >> >engineering team at Luxology regarding how a CPU can be tested? See,
> >>
> >> Another argument to authority, am I to collect these and form a
> >> bracelet out of your chain of loose reasoning?
> >
> >That's quite humorous coming from one who avoids giving reason when
> >asked of him. You're TRYING like hell to sound like an authority here...
> >why not explain to all of us why you are?
>
> Are you retarded? An argument to authority is a fallacy, there's no
> point in responding to it other than to point that out.
>
> >Not exactly, see... I checked with an authority that was involved in the
> >testing. He seems to know a lot more than you have shown so far. You are
> >publicly passing all kinds of judgement on something you know nothing
> >about.
>
> I'm sure this super secret exchange with some secretary or maybe the
> 411 recording was an exciting and enlightening time for you. Put the
> details in your next handwritten 30 page letter to the editor of the
> Pawtuxey Gazette and Weekly Shopper.
>
> >> Someone check and see if Steve Carroll's veins are popping
> >> on his neck yet. I seem to have sent him into a grand mal seizure.
> >
> >So you don't intend on supplying any reason why anyone should listen to
> >you about CPU testing? Gotcha. For my part, I think I'll stick with the
> >conversation I had with a Luxology engineer for the time being. My neck
> >veins and I see this a more reasonable course of action than listening
> >to some NG buffoon who can't answer a simple question regarding his own
> >authority on a subject he has publicly shown himself to be woefully
> >ill-prepared to discuss. Be a sport and let me know what information
> >Luxology conveys to you, won't you? While I'm waiting, I'll find
> >something for you that goes well with crow...
>
> Funny that you can't bear to repeat this earth-shattering information
> from your "phone call" with Luxology, even though you're certain it
> demolishes everything I've ever said about their test.
>
> You really are a fucking kook, right up there with Polaski.


So this is what your 'argument' has been reduced to? I gave the
'authority' that YOU cited. Luxology specifically told me that the test
they conducted is essentially a duplication of some portions of SPEC.
You get smacked around in a NG with your own benchmarks and all you can
do is whine? Pathetic...

Steve

Steve Carroll wrote in
<fretwizz-DA478F.10484714072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:

[snip transcript of demonstrating Steve Carroll's net kook brotherhood
with Polaski and Joe Ragosta]

>So this is what your 'argument' has been reduced to? I gave the
>'authority' that YOU cited. Luxology specifically told me that the test
>they conducted is essentially a duplication of some portions of SPEC.

I actually never cited an authority, that was you, you, and you
several times throughout this incredibly boring exchange. Duplicating
"some portions of SPEC" is such a meaningless vague response it
supports no particular stance on their test. You didn't even bother
telling who you talked to there, if in fact you talked to anyone which
I now doubt. It's so unlike you to pass up the chance to argue from
authority that it is sounding more and more like you simply
misinterpreted a 411 recording giving you the phone number of your
ex-girlfirend.

You obviously can't even comprehend what a benchmark is supposed to do
besides produce a number. Keep flailing, I'm enjoying watching you
act out your mental affiliation with the aforementioned boobs...

In article <spl8hvgdv10p7ali4507mifggf7b9hpbfa[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote in
> <fretwizz-DA478F.10484714072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>
> [snip transcript of demonstrating Steve Carroll's net kook brotherhood
> with Polaski and Joe Ragosta]
>
> >So this is what your 'argument' has been reduced to? I gave the
> >'authority' that YOU cited. Luxology specifically told me that the test
> >they conducted is essentially a duplication of some portions of SPEC.
>
> I actually never cited an authority, that was you, you, and you
> several times throughout this incredibly boring exchange. Duplicating
> "some portions of SPEC" is such a meaningless vague response it
> supports no particular stance on their test. You didn't even bother
> telling who you talked to there, if in fact you talked to anyone which
> I now doubt. It's so unlike you to pass up the chance to argue from
> authority that it is sounding more and more like you simply
> misinterpreted a 411 recording giving you the phone number of your
> ex-girlfirend.
>
> You obviously can't even comprehend what a benchmark is supposed to do
> besides produce a number. Keep flailing, I'm enjoying watching you
> act out your mental affiliation with the aforementioned boobs...

You cited SPEC, you moron. I realize the idea you did so as an authority
is beyond your ken but it's still been fun watching you dance... despite
the fact that you're no good at that either. Additionally, you TRIED to
cite yourself as some form of authority adjudicating a comparison
between Spec and what Luxology did but you failed to talk about anything
specific, just like many of us have seen you do on the NG every single
day. Your idea that the test wasn't valid based only on the fact that
they offloaded the routines to the CPU shows how childlike your thinking
on the subject actually is. Well guess what? No one here is shocked...

Steve

In article <njodhv8naeq7n1a4snlp20fcji9lsg11pc[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote in
> <fretwizz-0DA3BA.16135215072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>
> >In article <spl8hvgdv10p7ali4507mifggf7b9hpbfa[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Carroll wrote in
> >> <fretwizz-DA478F.10484714072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >>
> >> [snip transcript of demonstrating Steve Carroll's net kook brotherhood
> >> with Polaski and Joe Ragosta]
> >>
> >> >So this is what your 'argument' has been reduced to? I gave the
> >> >'authority' that YOU cited. Luxology specifically told me that the test
> >> >they conducted is essentially a duplication of some portions of SPEC.
> >>
> >> I actually never cited an authority, that was you, you, and you
> >> several times throughout this incredibly boring exchange. Duplicating
> >> "some portions of SPEC" is such a meaningless vague response it
> >> supports no particular stance on their test. You didn't even bother
> >> telling who you talked to there, if in fact you talked to anyone which
> >> I now doubt. It's so unlike you to pass up the chance to argue from
> >> authority that it is sounding more and more like you simply
> >> misinterpreted a 411 recording giving you the phone number of your
> >> ex-girlfirend.
> >>
> >> You obviously can't even comprehend what a benchmark is supposed to do
> >> besides produce a number. Keep flailing, I'm enjoying watching you
> >> act out your mental affiliation with the aforementioned boobs...
> >
> >You cited SPEC, you moron. I realize the idea you did so as an authority
> >is beyond your ken but it's still been fun watching you dance... despite
> >the fact that you're no good at that either. Additionally, you TRIED to
> >cite yourself as some form of authority adjudicating a comparison
> >between Spec and what Luxology did but you failed to talk about anything
>
> Poor Steve Carroll. Still winding himself up and spinning around a
> subject he's obviously ill-equipped to deal with. I won't bother
> setting you straight on what was being discussed and who was arguing
> to authority--after the nth time it just becomes boring.

You have no need to do so, google already shows you citing SPEC as some
form of 'authority'. The fact that you are too stupid to understand
that's what you did doesn't change anything. Problem time for Stevie...
If SPEC isn't an 'authority' in your eyes here, why even bring it up?
Yeah, it became -NOT an authority- when I mentioned that their test
essentially did some of the same things that SPEC does.


> But Steve, you dropped the ball on those EXTREMELY INTERESTING
> allusions you made to a telephone call with Luxology. Once I called
> your bluff you seemed to forget all about it. Who *did* you talk to?
> What *did* they say?

That's a good one... you can't answer a question, so you ask one
yourself. Why, we can hear that goal post a movin' right now. I'm not
telling you squat, nor am I compelled to for the purposes of this
discussion! My goal was to see if you were actually going to research
any of the crap YOU were talking. See, the responsibility was YOURS to
make good on YOUR claim that their test wasn't valid. I contacted
Luxology in response to your initial -SPEC as an 'authority'- statement
because I wanted to know what kind of test they conducted. I wanted to
be privy to information I was pretty sure you didn't have. I now know I
was right. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt even
though I already knew you were just blowing smoke and you had no
intention of contacting them because doing so would have made you look
even more foolish (yeah, I didn't think it was possible, either). More
of your same inane blathering only reconfirms it all.

> You, who demands specifics even or especially
> when doing so misses the point, seem extremely reluctant to specify
> what you claimed was proof that I was all wet.
>
> It just seems odd, don't it?

The only thing that seems odd is your 'command' of the language. The
specifics I demanded were because you made a statement regarding the
validity of Luxology's test. The only thing you 'specifically' stated
was that the test isn't valid because it's not normally done on a CPU.
IOW I got a bullshit answer.

You basically said that the following is not done on a CPU:

"The demo set up itself was designed to require a large number of
computes and to push a large amount of data in and out of the chip to
show both processor speed and bandwidth. I believe the demo accomplished
this in an effective and very fair manner. "

REALLY basic stuff here, Steve. You didn't do your computing reputation
any good by making the claim, ya know. The Luxology engineering team,
(predominantly a 'Windows' team) feels the test was very valid. I then
asked you why I should listen to you over them... all I got back was a
weak ad hominem and... another bullshit answer. I realize this idea is
foreign to you, but when YOU are the one making the claim that a test
isn't valid for CPU comparisions, it's up to YOU to make good on the
claim. Sitting there with your thumb up your ass just won't cut it.

> >specific, just like many of us have seen you do on the NG every single
> >day. Your idea that the test wasn't valid based only on the fact that
> >they offloaded the routines to the CPU shows how childlike your thinking
> >on the subject actually is. Well guess what? No one here is shocked...
>
> Actually, Luxology admitted they had to disable the GPU for the
> purpose of their test. QED, any test that requires disabling one of
> the main components of the system probably isn't going to tell us much
> useful information now, is it? ;-)

LOL !!!! They 'admitted they had to disable the GPU', huh???? Put down
the crack pipe, you moron! They were testing one CPU against another.

Note:

"In the case of our demonstration we actually moved many of those
functions to go through the CPU and stated as much in the presentation.
After all, this was a test of raw CPU power, and not the graphics cards
in the box "


> What not run a benchmark that
> disables Altivec or the CPU cache? [shaking head] Say, are you Jim
> Lee's sock puppet?

Yeah, it was a CPU test, imagine having to run the code through the CPU?
What WERE they thinking? Are you really this much of an idiot or do you
just play one on this NG? They also didn't use Altivec or SSE so it WAS
a pretty fair assessment of what the CPU's were capable of, which was
the entire point. I'll be glad to keep shoveling, but do you REALLY want
to continue to bury yourself here?

Steve